Hungering For Democracy

I'm going to meet Republicans halfway here. A frequent claim made, when defending the Iraq war, is that we gave the Iraqis the Democracy that they craved. I usually brush this off as another lie, (Weapons of Mass Destruction! Hussein was tied up with 9/11!) but clearly, this is not a lie. Events in Iran reinforce the idea that the Middle East passionately wants free and fair elections.

Where I part company with my Republican brethren (and you are my brethren, except those of you who are my sistern) is on this: they clearly want Democracy, but they don't want Americans giving it to 'em. If we gave them the chance in Iraq, the first thing they'd vote out would be us. Guaranteed. Democracy won't transform the Middle East into a benign haven for us. It will, however, give the PEOPLE who hate us more power and the GOVERNMENT who hates us less.

This is why, if you aren't rooting for Ahmadinejad (yes, I had to cut and paste the name) the last thing you want is for Obama to speak out in support of his opponent. Once that guy becomes the American Choice, his political career is over. Let's step back and let the rest of the world handle this one, shall we? They have their uses sometimes too.

Your Freedom To Choose What I Want

In the course of my usual blog arguments this morning, a paragraph caught my eye. From an Investor's Business Daily editorial about Jimmy Carter, and his less-than-vicious statements about Hamas.

When one party has started a civil war, democracy isn't exactly the issue anymore. ...Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly points out that those who are elected democratically have an obligation to govern democratically or they aren't democrats. Hamas has blown its right to democracy.

Now understand I'm not crazy about Jimmy Carter, and Hamas is a bunch of war-mongering lunatics masquerading as a political party. But what the hell is this anonymous editorialist getting at here? I'll paraphrase: We, the United States, are the judges of whether your elections should count. The editorial doesn't dispute that the Palestinian vote was orderly and fair (well he does put "scare quotes" around that term, and later the word "won", but that's not the same as disputing) he merely disputes the RIGHT of them to govern since he doesn't like how they're doing it.

Democracy is a messy business, and if you are going to encourage the people to choose their leaders, you better be prepared for them to do it. We have been trying to cram Democracy down the sandy throats of the Middle East for a long time now; if we tell them "you need to pick a leader we LIKE" then we're selling defective product. And they don't exactly love doing business with us now, effendi.

The editorial also says "No one in the West is obligated to support an international terrorist organization just because it "won" an election. The proper response is to cut it off until it renounces violence." I agree with that. If they want our help, we can demand that they act a certain way. It's hypocritical to demand non-violence out of Hamas, but not unreasonable. If they have something we want, we can change our behaviors too. Fair exchange.